CA to eliminate coal generated electricity

I didn't vote.

I think this has less to do with building more nuclear power plants and more to do with adding solar and wind.

 

The left effectively closed down our nuclear power capability with mush-headed movies ("China Syndrome") and fear mongering, while their counterparts in France were busy building reactors to provide a large part of their electricity generating capacity. I never understood the chasm between European liberals and American liberals on this point; usually they like to snuggle together in the same sleeping bag.

Imagine if the Europeans and British are successful with the JET, and can produce a capable, sustainable fusion reactor:

<div align="center"></div>

Existing hybrid technology can nearly double our vehicle mileage, and plug in hybrids on a nuclear grid can provide even more savings, to finally make us energy independent and not hostages of Muslim extremists.

 

I just heard a blurb on the radio that some farmers are being forced to grow more corn for ethanol instead of food crops, because it is more profitable. Additionally, if we are to produce enough ethanol to make a difference, we'd have to plant millions of acres of corn (or whatever the plant). Take into consideration the mechanised equipment for harvesting and processing and we have another dirty solution. Oil - same, dirty.

On the last disclosure statement, around 90% of my power came from nuclear. While this appears to be a fairly safe option, we also have a waste matter to deal with since we don't "reuse" the waste byproduct (I think Tripp helped me to understand this). As long as the nuclear plant is not within a range that would be catastrophic to me should a leak occur, I'm ok with using this technology for our energy. Is this a fair statement to all the others that reside in this country? No. So I'm forced to remove the use of nuclear energy from my "acceptable" energy list as I have a conscience. I'm also not very confident that our government has a great handle on the security of these plants after a documentary that I saw. This scares me the most.

With all of the above in mind, wind and solar appear to be the safest, cleanest options for us. As I write this, I'm now wondering what minerals have to be mined and what pollution would be recognized upon the manufacturing of the materials needed for these two energy forms.....something I'll now be forced to research.

In Springfield, Illinois (I think the Village of Northbrook, Illinois also just started using a percentage of renewables and passed this cost on to the residents), they just opted to get away from coal and start using wind. As municipalities start moving in this direction, it'll help move these choices to the individual consumer's level. Short of a "bad" answer to what I'll now be researching as noted above, consumer choice for wind and solar is what I continue to wait for.

As I read part (I don't have time to read the whole) of the second link, I'm wondering how all the increased weight of humans on the planet don't adjust the torque or the gravitational pull of/on the earth (6 Billion people weigh a lot). It has something to do w/ the fact that the weight on earth is what it is and doesn't change, I think. Is this true and how can that be? We are growing life forms and weigh more as we grow. Forgive me if I sound idiotic. What gets displaced?

Oh, and the first link won't open for me.

 

A lot of people are favoring nuclear power over coal burning or hydroelectric. It would allow us the fastest exit from fossil fuel. The risks are low and very localized.

James Lovelock gave some pretty good examples of why nuclear is the way to go for the mean time in his book "The Revenge of Gaia". Wind and solar is not efficient enough to take over coal or hydro for our power needs yet.

 

I voted on the first option - build as many nuclear plants as possible. I feel that it's the most effective way of dealing with global warming. Don't get me wrong - I'd much rather have solar power (I plan on installing some when I eventually get the finances)... but to realistically combat global warming I think it's necessary.

It's true that liberals here in general hate nuclear with a passion... but to combat things realistically means accepting nuclear power, IMHO. Though in the minority for liberals, I know of a few liberal friends that support nuclear power.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jan 27 2007, 09:43 AM) [snapback]381623[/snapback]</div>

The Earth's gravitational pull has nothing to do with its rotation. Gravity is simply the phenomenon that mass attracts mass. The Earth holds us down onto it because it is very massive, and it would have the exact same gravitational pull if it were spinning faster, slower, or not at all.

There is no increased weight when things grow, be it people, animals, or trees. All that stuff that everything is made out of comes from somewhere. You are made out of what you eat, plants are made out of the carbon they get from the atmosphere, etc. No matter is ever lost or magically created, it's just constantly shuffled around in different forms.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sumi's_man @ Jan 27 2007, 07:35 AM) [snapback]381641[/snapback]</div>

Part of that is true but you forgot distribution. Putting weight that was once evenly distributed into "clumps" on certain parts of the map can indeed alter rotation. Generally speaking it is usually through landmass changes but I have heard of hypotheses concerning freshwater distribution due to dams or evaporation.

 

Conservation and renewable energy is more cost effective than centralized fission (nuclear) power. Photovoltaic panels on every residence, business, church and school roof - tied to the grid will produce a surplus of electricity without the short and long term hazards and waste of fission.

Fission reactors are not being built because they are too expensive, even with government subsidies and liability limits. California has a diversity of power sources: solar, wind, hydro, wave and conservation. No rational person proposes centralized fission power plants in 2007.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Jan 27 2007, 08:08 AM) [snapback]381654[/snapback]</div>

Have you actually looked up our power needs now and in the near future then calculated how many windmills, dams and PVs we would require to meet those needs? Especially taking into consideration a lack or resources to devolop those items like PVs? Is building more dams the answer then? Most rational people I have spoken with or read up on, regard nuclear power as a great option to ween ourselves off fossil fuels and to buy us time to make alternatives more efficient. The real problem is in the word you used, "Centralized". Once we have our alternatives figured out then decentralization of any power source should be a key factor.

I agree 100% that consumption is the #1 problem and it really would eliminate the need for any new nuclear plants BUT do you really think we are going to get the rich, egotistical, selfish, or ignorant to reduce their consumption enough so that doesn't happen? Don't get me wrong I'm all about ecological design and living on current sunlight. My concern is for the other 98% of the population that think my views are too restrictive and "hippyish" and won't even listen.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Jan 27 2007, 11:17 AM) [snapback]381659[/snapback]</div>

I don't think anyone is proposing a single solution, I.E. just switch to solar/wind.

The solution is going to be multiple.

Do a lot more solar.

Do a lot more wind.

CUT BACK ON CONSUMPTION!

Yes, maybe more reactors.

And a lot more alternative energy development. I'm not even thinking ethanol. I'm thinking more efficient production of the first two. And geothermal, in which the U.S. isn't even close to being a leader. Also Tides. There are others that don't come to mind. I think one is the temperature difference between the cold bottom of the ocean and the warm top, but I don't remember what it's called. There's plenty that *could* be developed.

We need to get out of the single solution mindset. It's going to be a lot of things working together. But using less and using more wisely is going to have to be the first.

 

I agree completely Godiva, you know how I am with diversity. Its everywhere in nature for a reason.

The problem is the speed in which we make these changes. It is simply not fast enough. Many of these designs are in their infancy and cannot be massively executed fast enough. Well, all but consumption. That one could be immediate if people would get their heads out of their butts and start caring about more than just themselves. Some of the other alternatives are not even viable if you consider the degredation they cause or the lack of efficiency like proposed tidal energy or hydroelectric (dams).

We've all seen the dollar figures on where we could be in terms of alternative energy had we not invested those dollars into a false war to attain ancient energy. :angry:

 

The real goal here is to displace coal with something that can provide the same benefits (from a production standpoint that is). Coal is a "dispatchable" power source. That's the energy industry term for available on demand.

That's the advantage that coal has over wind. Straight-up wind-power is not dispatchable. PV Solar (without battery backup) is not dispatchable. Wind power can be coupled with storage (here's an example) but this hasn't been done much at all yet.

Nuclear is also dispatchable. The French get somewhere around 75% of their electricity from nuclear sources. It can be done. There are also several different varieties and possibilities with nuclear. There are varieties that never produce weapons grade material. Most good reactor designs are negative feedback systems. This means that the more "out of control" the system tends the less reactive it becomes. This keeps things like Chernobyl from happening. The Chernobyl reactors were of a terrible design never used in the west. They were of the positive feedback variety. The more out of control the dangerous they got. We all know the results of that.

I think that if given a choice between more coal plants or more nuclear I'd choose nuclear unless someone can demonstrate that sequestered CO2 is a viable pathway. No one seems to be in a big rush. The first FutureGen test plant isn't due to be complete until 2012 at the earliest. Makes you wonder about whether sequestration is really viable when the folks you should be the most eager to prove it seem to be sitting on their hands.

So, we should be looking to displace coal with as many dispatchable technologies as we can. Nuclear is one but there are others that are better for certain areas. Geothermal is dispatchable. The US produces more energy via geothermal than any other country but we could greatly expand our use of it, especially in the west. Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) is also dispatchable (not to mention more efficient and cheaper than PV) because the heat can be stored pretty easily. In places with lots of sunlight these things are going to take off. The SW could produce insane amounts of energy via CSP and have dispatchable power too!

Landfill gas is dispatchable, but generally the outputs are small (3-10 MW from what I've seen). Waste water biogas is another one that can and has been put to use.

Wind and solar (PV) will still have their place and should have a place. Distributed generation makes a lot of sense. Getting cheap batteries to market would really help because then every house could have its own dispatchable power source (not to mention PHEVs or full BEVs).

 

Good info.

I'm going to have to look into some of the newer info. Newer than what I've read about in the last few months. Man stuff changes fast.

*edit*

On futher study I guess I could be wrong about nuclear power. It seems that some of the alternatives are getting better than I thought. I'm still concerned abotu the speed in which we can do this though. Either way I will appologize for my arguement and continue to look for more info.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jan 29 2007, 09:35 PM) [snapback]382648[/snapback]</div>

Well, for one I think that it has to do with "The Man". The nuclear industry has been, of course, associated with the military industrial complex (of which it's been a part) since its beginning. As such the environmental movement (which was historically comprised of folks who thought that "The Man" was "schwag") has been very leary of it. Given business' track record with stewardship (think mid-century here) the logical conclusion for many enviro types was that the nuke industry will be the same and given the risk of pollution many folks were vociferously opposed to the industry. I can't say that I blame them for their perception. Industry as a whole was terribly cavalier with all sorts of nasty sh*te. PCBs, the Chuyahoga (sp?) river catching on fire :blink:, DDT and a whole slew of others. The nuclear industry seems to have a good track record for safety. 3 mile island was a good example of a disaster gone the right way. The meltdown was contained. The Russian experience was different but that was because the reactor design was awful. It was an accident waiting to happen. I'm speculating here able the left/right thing. That's my best guess as to how if came about.

In the west, I think that perhaps the biggest issue is water use. Nuclear power requires an enormous amount of water. According to the CEC (CA Energy Commision) every kWh requires 0.62 gal of water! For coal it's somewhat less (0.49 gal/kWh). This could cause water shortage issues if we're not careful. Particularly if the west continues to be dry.

 

I agree that we need to work on the problem from many different angles: clean coal where CO2 is sequestered, solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear (although I favor this least we may be out of options.) Also cutting back on consumption of electricity and goods in general, trying to reduce, reuse, and recycle as much as possible. How do we do this? Get the message out that we really need to start doing something. Elect representatives that take these problems seriously and will spend money on research as well as create incentives for people to act accordingly. Instead of free municiple garbage pickup, how about pay as you throw? This might lead to more recycling. Raise bulk postage fees so junk mail is reduced or change the rules so that junk mail can only be sent to customers requesting it or fines will need to be paid by the sender. Raise electricity prices so that people use less and decide that the more energy efficient appliance may be worth the extra $50 after all. Improve building codes, I am sure there are many more ideas I haven't thought of. Conservation is a big piece of the puzzle. I forgot about better municipal planning and better public transportation and rail systems. I think it is a bad idea to rule out coal altogether, but the standard coal plants of the past should no longer be built. The EPA needs to regulate CO2 by setting up a cap and trade system.

Dennis

 

Agreed. We all know that there's no slam dunk solution to these problems. There are many complementary solutions that will make the world a much better place. I like the idea of charging different rates for garbage collection. Just simply guilt tripping people about recycling would go a long way. There have been a few gov't advertising campaigns that have worked well (seat belts, for example). Those should be replicated.